Maggie Haberman Torpedoes Trump’s ‘Hard To Follow’ Defense Against ‘Pretty Clear Evidence’ of Payoff

CNN commentator and New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman made a grim assessment of former President Donald Trump’s defense against “pretty clear evidence” of a payoff to Stormy Daniels., calling it “hard to follow.”

Haberman and her Times colleagues reported from inside the courtroom with live updates, as they have since the trial began in earnest, in the Stormy Daniels hush money-election interference trial on Monday.

The day began with fireworks, as Judge Juan Merchan issued a contempt ruling that included a strong threat of jail time.

After that, the trial resumed with comparatively dry testimony from witnesses like former Trump Organization comptroller Jeffrey McConney, who offered several key points of testimony for the prosecution’s case.

Nevertheless, Trump seemed happy with the testimony, reportedly giving him “two fist pump gestures as he left the stand.”

But Haberman and her colleagues weighed in on the weaknesses in Trump attorney Emil Bove’s cross-examination of McConney, finding it far from alright, alright, alright.

In the Times‘ live trial blog, Haberman called the cross a “jumble” caused by Trump’s influence, while Jonah Bromwich pointed out the defense has failed to “offer a cohesive alternative theory of the case”:

Maggie Haberman
May 6, 2024, 12:54 p.m. ET

Watching Emil Bove’s largely hard-to-follow cross examination of Jeffrey McConney, the challenge facing Trump’s lawyers again becomes clear. They’re basically doing a version of: “He didn’t do it, and even if he did it’s not a crime.”

That worked effectively during, say, Trump’s first impeachment trial, which was a political trial. But this is a criminal case involving a lot of pretty clear evidence that Michael Cohen made a payoff to Stormy Daniels that he was reimbursed for after discussions involving top Trump financial officials.

Since the client here — Trump — never wants his lawyers to cede any ground as to whether he did anything questionable, the defense lawyers are left with this jumble.

Jonah Bromwich
May 6, 2024, 12:44 p.m. ET

As we listen to Emil Bove seek to emphasize that Jeffrey McConney was not personally sure what the repayments to Michael Cohen were for, I’m reminded that the defense lawyers, in their opening statement, did not offer a cohesive alternative theory of the case, but rather attacked various parts of the prosecution’s case. That can make it difficult to follow what Bove is trying to achieve with an individual witness, especially one like McConney who mostly testified about documentary evidence. Bove is implying that McConney doesn’t truly understand the documents he was asked to testify about — but even accepting McConney’s relative ignorance, it’s hard to know what the defense wants the jury to make of these damning documents.

Jonathan Swan
May 6, 2024, 12:47 p.m. ET

Bove appears to be trying to make the jury feel like none of this was secretive or nefarious. To that end, he just spent a bunch of time getting McConney to say how he routinely locked cabinets to protect Trump Organization employees’ sensitive financial details. In other words, he implies, the cabinet was not locked to protect the secret agreement with Michael Cohen.

Read the full updates here.